If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Welcome to the Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association Forum, we hope you like what you find here and we strongly encourage you to register for an account with us, especially if you are from Pennsylvania. Once registered you will have access to participate in our community. Thanks for visiting and we hope you become a regular!

A three-judge panel from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a June 29, 2017, ruling a against California’s “high capacity” magazine ban.
On June 29, 2017, Breitbart News reported that U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez blocked the ban to prevent law-abiding citizens from being criminalized. ABC News quoted from Benitez’s ruling, “If this injunction does not issue, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of otherwise law-abiding citizens will have an untenable choice: become an outlaw or dispossess one’s self of lawfully acquired property.”

The “high capacity” magazine ban was the result of a Proposition passed by the majority of California voters, but Benitez said, ““[The] constitution is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.”

The state of California appealed Benitez ruling and on July 17, 2018, a panel from the Ninth Circuit upheld the ruling.

The panel voted 2 to 1, and the NRA-ILA reports that the two judges who voted to uphold the ruling “chided the dissenting judge for substituting his own discretion for that of Judge Benitez, who had the primary responsibility to evaluate and weigh the evidence in the case.”

The state of California can now appeal the case for the Ninth Circuit to hear en banc.

Magazine size bans (thankfully reversed thus far), straw bans (yet to be litigated), foam packaging bans all seem to be directing attention to minor issues that grab headlines and the attention of the malleable public.

What does the shield of California's constitution say about their $1 TRILLION in underfunded pension liabilities?

"California has racked up approximately $1 trillion in state and municipal unfunded pension liabilities. While California politicians have plenty of ideas for new taxes and regulations, they have no plans to rectify these soul crushing unfunded pension liabilities, which taxpayers are ultimately on the hook for. Rather than spend time and scarce taxpayers resources coming up with new ways to make it harder to do business in the Golden State – like banning foam and making it illegal for restaurants to give out drinking straws – California officials need to spend their time on the real challenges facing the state."

I have no idea of the downstream economic impact on the state whether magazines are limited in size, banned, repermitted, etc, but it's doubtful that the economic impact, whichever way it tumbles, is more than $100 million a year (.1% of a trillion) - not even considered petty cash compared to the looming pension issue.

But the legislators, court system, and lawyers are gonna look like they're doing something - and make lots of $$$$$$$ while they debate these issues.

And since California has been making noises about dividing itself into three states, exactly how are they gonna split that unfunded pension liability?

Magazine size bans (thankfully reversed thus far), straw bans (yet to be litigated), foam packaging bans all seem to be directing attention to minor issues that grab headlines and the attention of the malleable public.

What does the shield of California's constitution say about their $1 TRILLION in underfunded pension liabilities?

"California has racked up approximately $1 trillion in state and municipal unfunded pension liabilities. While California politicians have plenty of ideas for new taxes and regulations, they have no plans to rectify these soul crushing unfunded pension liabilities, which taxpayers are ultimately on the hook for. Rather than spend time and scarce taxpayers resources coming up with new ways to make it harder to do business in the Golden State – like banning foam and making it illegal for restaurants to give out drinking straws – California officials need to spend their time on the real challenges facing the state."

I have no idea of the downstream economic impact on the state whether magazines are limited in size, banned, repermitted, etc, but it's doubtful that the economic impact, whichever way it tumbles, is more than $100 million a year (.1% of a trillion) - not even considered petty cash compared to the looming pension issue.

But the legislators, court system, and lawyers are gonna look like they're doing something - and make lots of $$$$$$$ while they debate these issues.

And since California has been making noises about dividing itself into three states, exactly how are they gonna split that unfunded pension liability?

They will fund the pension shortfalls by defaulting on their debts, screwing bondholders who have no votes. That is how Detroit did it. That is how Puerto Rico is doing it. That is how Chicago and eventually, Illinois, NY, NJ and our own PA will do it.